Home » Posts tagged 'determinism'

Tag Archives: determinism

The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part Two)

Part One

Free Will

When you read “free will,” you read two words, one of which is “will.”  “Will” is simple.  A mind is capable of choosing, like ordering a flavor of ice cream or reaching into the candy bowl for Snickers or Reeses.

There are layers here.  The will is the capability of the mind choosing, but a motive directs the will in its choice.  Many different factors may or can combine to bring someone to volition.  Scripture deals with them in several various instances.

The word “free” has to do with opportunity or power.  Someone can and has the opportunity to do what he wants.  The question arises, does anyone truly have the power and opportunity?  Is anyone really free in his will?

In part one, I see in scripture that the free will of man exists by the very use of the terminology “free will” in scripture.  What though goes into free will?

Concerns in the Subject of Free Will

From my vantage point, I see six main types of concerns in the subject of free will.  One, God created man, wants love from man, and man needs free will to love God.  Hence, God created man with free will.

Two, free will explains suffering.  God allowed men a choice to sin and the consequential curse that brings suffering to men.  Suffering isn’t God’s fault.  It’s ours.  This does not mean that God cannot allow suffering or deliver from suffering, but it rose from man’s sin.

Three, apparently if man has free will, then he becomes the deciding factor of salvation and God doesn’t then get the glory.  This assumes a salvation decision makes man’s salvation by works.  Scripture doesn’t read that way, but it’s a kind of logical argument for determinists.

Four, if man doesn’t have free will, then God determined sin and becomes the author of sin.  God is not the author of sin according to James 1:13.  His hatred of sin would also assume He’s not the author of sin.  God created beings with the potential to sin, but He didn’t create sin.

Five, the Bible does not at all read deterministic.  God is sovereign, but His sovereignty doesn’t contradict man’s free will.  The two do not contradict.  God does not cede His authority by allowing men to decide.

The Debilitation of the Sin Nature

Six, free will given to man by God is debilitated by the corruption of his sin nature, even as seen in 2 Peter 2:19:

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

This bondage is so complete that Jesus says in John 15:5:

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Without Jesus, man can do nothing.  This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Illusion of Free Will

Men are so darkened in their minds that they operate in bondage.  This speaks of the illusion of free will.  In Romans 8:8, Paul writes that man in the flesh “cannot please God.”  That doesn’t sound free, does it?  He cannot.  In the previous verse, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”  The carnal mind cannot subject to the law of God.  That also does not sound free.

I hear today especially young people about their loss of free will.  They even consider this “loss” as a kind of deviance.  On the other hand, they consider the choice of sin to be free.  Sin isn’t freedom.  Jesus said in John 8:34:  “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”

Sin is not freedom.  It is bondage.  What I’m writing here is why the subject of free will is a knotty problem.  Their freedom is illusory.

Freedom comes from God.  The way out comes from God.  The grace of God allows free will.  God created man with free will, but sin brought bondage.  God’s grace brings freedom.

Satan deceives everyone and especially young people today, that they are free because they can choose evil.  That “choice” is an illusion.  The exhilaration of their choosing evil is part of the deception and bondage.  They find themselves in great peril in these chains of darkness.  And they don’t view their new Satanic religion as deviant.  It’s the same sociological pathology held by the opponents of Noah while he prepared the ark.

The Inclination of the Grace of God

On the subject of free will, confronting the knottiness, Jonathan Edwards distinguished between natural ability and moral ability.  Sin does not stop a man from making choices.  He makes them.  Because man can and does make choices, he has responsibility before God.

Even though he chooses, moral depravity chains a man to sinfulness.  Everything he does is ruined in some way, so that he makes no good choices even when he makes good choices.  That sounds contradictory, but he cannot please God and that makes everything bad.  Even when he’s trying to please God, his remaining rebellion and rejection of truth ruins those too.  That is the moral inability of Edwards.

Edwards contrasts with ancient theologian and heretic, Pelagius.  Pelagius saw inability as injustice, because God commanded man to obey.  If man couldn’t, then God was unjust.  God isn’t unjust, so man must be still good to a certain extent.  Pelagius depended on flawed logic like determinists also do.

God can hold man responsible for choices, because he has the ability to choose.  The freedom of choice, however, is an illusion to all except those who encounter the inclination of the grace of God.  God’s grace exerts its power in the means God chooses for the reality of free will.  The lost have free will in their natural ability and potential for moral ability, ability only experienced by true believers through the grace of God.  They are free indeed (John 8:36).

James White and His Troublesome Deterministic View of God

One of the features of the White and Ross debate was an attack afterwards on Thomas Ross by White followers, because he would not “answer” questions of White.  I disagree.  Ross answered all of White’s questions.  He just didn’t like Ross’s answers.  When I watched the White and Van Kleeck debate, White wouldn’t answer Van Kleeck’s questions, really not answer them.

A recent episode of Soteriology 101 with Leighton Flowers popped up on my phone.  I’m not a subscriber.  The title was “Popular Calvinist Makes a Stunning Admission,” and I could see the Calvinist was James White on the cover.  So, as click bait, that worked for me.  I had to see what the “stunning admission” from White was.

The Determination by God of All Moral Evil?

The main theme of Flowers’s podcast was the determination by God of all moral evil.  Flowers doesn’t believe it, but he quoted Calvin as believing it.  He explained the effect of this belief.  If this is God, people reject Him because they don’t think He’s good.  The Calvinist answers that God is right, these things are just beyond our full comprehension.  Here’s the quote by Calvin that says this exact thing:

But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.

Flowers says that Calvin is saying, “I don’t know how God is good with my view of determinism, just that I know that He is.”  Something like that.  He’s accepting God decrees moral evil, yet He’s still good, because God is good.

People like myself say, “God does not decree or determine moral evil.”  If someone says that God does that, we say, “No, He doesn’t.”  We might quote James 1:13:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Guillaume Bignon

White has endorsed the book by French Calvinist, Guillaume Bignon, Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil.  In a recent interview, Bignon says:

Determinism is not the thesis that some things are determined.  It’s the view that all things are determined.

Bignon is asked, Did God determine then for other theologians, like Muller, to disagree with you?  He answers, “Yes,” because God determined everything.  In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3), Calvin said:

Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he knowingly and willingly decreed.

Did God Decree a Rape?

Calvin taught that God destined the will of every man to do whatever man did and does.  In his debate with George Bryson, Bryson asks White this:

When a child is raped, is God responsible?  Did he decree that rape?

Based on the understanding White and his fans hold for answering a question, White would not answer Bryson’s question.  He did answer it, but he would not say, yes or no, until pinned down by the moderator.  When White asks a “yes or no” question, he and his followers expect a yes or a no.  They don’t hold that standard for White, as seen in the Van Kleeck debate, but also in his answer to Bryson.  White answered:

If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.

Hank Hanegraaff is the moderator and he asks White, “So what is your answer then?”  In other words, White wouldn’t answer the question.  No problem for White fans.  This is James White.  Whatever he says will count as an answer.

White then says to Hanegraaff, “I’m trying to go to scripture,” to which Hanegraaff replies, “What is the answer to the question that he just asked?”  And so finally White does answer the question.  To the question of, “When a child is raped, is God responsible?  Did he decree that rape?”  James White answers:

Yes, because, if not, then it is meaningless and purposeless.  And though God knew it was going to happen, he created without a purpose.  That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.

God Does Not Decree or Determine Moral Evil or the Rape of a Child

White, Hanegraaff, and Bryson say much more in this debate (which was in 2003), but White point blank says that God determined evil, even the determination of a rape of a child.  This was the stunning admission by the Calvinist, James White.

Is this true about God?  No.  It perverts a scriptural view of the sovereignty of God.  God is sovereign, but sovereignty means He is also sovereign over His sovereignty.  The word sovereignty isn’t in the Bible, but the doctrine is there.  However, we should allow God to define what His sovereignty is.  God allows or causes everything that happens.  I don’t agree with Calvin’s, Bignon’s, or White’s view of God’s sovereignty.  It doesn’t match up with what God says about Himself in scripture.

Someone asked Flowers, if God determines all moral evil, can God still be a good God?  I don’t want to answer that question.  I think, it isn’t God though.  This is just a hypothetical that could quote me as saying that God isn’t a good God.  God is a good God though.  If that was God, which it isn’t, then He would not be good.  I don’t see a God, who would determine or decree moral evil, as being good.  God allows evil.  He doesn’t determine or decree it.

If you say, like White, that God determines or decrees everything, then you also, like White does, must say that God determines or decrees evil, including the rape of a child.  Scripture does not teach this kind of determinism.  God determines things, it’s true, but not moral evil.

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Four)

Part One   Part Two   Part Three

A Hebrew word for “repent” in the Old Testament is nocham and it’s mainly used of God.  It first appears in Genesis 6:6:  “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”  The Old Testament makes those kinds of statements several times.  Compatible with that, consider the last two verses of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6):

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Elijah comes, who is John the Baptist, and preaches to Israel.  The LORD motivates Israel with His coming and smiting the earth with a curse.  If they listen, God withholds the curse.  If they don’t listen, the curse comes.  The curse may or may not come.  This is a warning.  So what happens?  A relatively few listen.  The rest are cursed.  This isn’t predetermination.  This is how the sovereignty of God works.  God does intervene with the warning and then later with the curse or punishment.

To read Malachi 4:5-6 any other way, complicating it with a wrong view of determinism, would pervert the plain meaning.  The two ideas of Genesis 6 and Malachi 4 are complimentary:  (1)  God repents of what He was going to do because of what men have done, and (2)  Men repent and God changes what He was going to do.  Both of those concepts, which are in scripture in multiple places, speak of men, including unsaved ones, having a free will.  They can make choices.

Men making choices doesn’t limit God.  God makes up the rules, His laws, and He uses the responses of men to orchestrate His will according to providence.  Man is not the determiner.  He doesn’t make the rules or the laws.  The Lord uses the wrong response by man and the right response by man both to still accomplish His purpose.

God does predetermine events.  He knows everything.  He has the power and wisdom to do whatever He wills.  His will is perfect.  Because all of this, God has free will to the greatest extent.

The Influence of Calvinism

Calvinists say, “Man doesn’t have free will, he has natural will, which is not free.”  There are many ideas behind it, but nothing in scripture backs it up.  The idea, that I read, is two main influences on the Protestant view of free will, Augustine and then later Luther’s writing, The Bondage of the Will.  The Bible will get you a certain distance toward the point of Calvinism about free will, but it doesn’t get you all the way.

Calvinism, out of what seems like desperation, crafts a title, like R. C. Sproul uses, the “humanist view of free will.”  He surmises this view is the majority view of believers, but when I read the view, I can’t imagine anyone believes it.  Is this a scientific study based on poll research?  He defines it this way:

[T]he choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.

Every choice comes because of prejudice, prior disposition or inclination.  A high enough percentage thinks there is prior inclination or disposition, that I would say everyone believes that, just the opposite of what Sproul says.

The Bondage of the Will

Just because someone acts on the basis of his strongest inclination at the moment of that choice, terminology used by Jonathan Edwards in his work, Freedom of Will, does not contradict freedom of will.  An unsaved man lacks in moral ability, but there are other means by which someone can choose Jesus Christ.  He has the freedom to choose.

Romans 3:10-12 say man neither seeks after God nor understands God.  Ephesians 2:1-5 say the lost are dead.  I read though that the truth sets some free from being a slave to sin (John 8:32-36).  All these though say to me that man can’t initiate the salvation.  That’s also what I read in the Bible; we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Can there be spiritual death and bondage to sin and free will?  I’m writing, yes, but it’s also because it’s what I read in scripture.  If man can’t do anything, because he’s in bondage, then he’s not responsible for anything.  Yet, he is responsible.  He’s responsible because God does reveal Himself to man.  I read this in Romans 1 among other places.

When men asked Jesus in Luke 13:23, are there few that be saved?  His answer put it on man and his obvious not striving to enter into the narrow gate.  Everything fits this way.  You read the parable of the soils in Matthew 13.  Jesus starts teaching in parables so as not to harden their hearts.  A less hard heart results in greater reception to the seed.  The truth can harden a heart.  Jesus talks about four types of hearts and all of these are about reception of the truth.

The Word of God, God’s Revelation

The Word of God, God’s revelation, is the supernatural cure for spiritual death and bondage to sin.  Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is powerful.  It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

Revelation that defeats bondage and spiritual death starts with general revelation, which is general in its audience.  This is the grace of God that appears to all men (Titus 2:11).  Jesus said the truth is what sets someone free (Jn 8:32).  Determination isn’t what sets people free.  Regeneration isn’t what is said to set people free.  Jesus freed dead Lazarus from the grave with His Words (Jn 11:43).  God said, let there be light and there was light (Gen 1:3).  Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

Faith is not a work.  It is a gift.  Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”  It is given to believe on Christ.  2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”  These saints obtained like precious faith.

God gives faith.  God gives it by means of His revelation.  He gives it by means of the Word of God.  Without revelation and without the Word of God, someone cannot believe.  God initiates salvation.  Salvation is of the Lord.

Tension

I don’t mind the claim of “a tension.”  I think there’s a tension.  The tension comes with two possible questions.  For the Calvinist the question concerns why someone or who is predetermined to Heaven or predetermined to Hell.  For a non Calvinist at least like myself the question concerns why someone responds to God’s revelation and some don’t.  I have many verses behind the tension that I believe.  All of scripture fits that tension.  The Calvinist says something like, God is sovereign over everything and He doesn’t have to answer, like the Potter doesn’t have to answer to clay.

I can agree with the Calvinist about tension.  God can do whatever He wants, and it’s always righteous.  He’s always righteous.  We are clay and He is the Potter.  However, the Potter gives answers all over His Word.

Let’s say you’re the parent and your child asks why?  You answer, I’m your Dad, that’s why.  That’s true, but that’s not the kind of answer that we get again and again and again in scripture.

I would say that man’s will is in bondage.  Maybe I and the Calvinist agree.  Perhaps it’s just how the bondage is removed.  Scripture says that God’s revelation is the delivering agent.  Since the Calvinist believes in determinism, it seems to me that he makes up this regeneration by the Holy Spirit that precedes faith.  I’ll leave it at that.

Faith pleases God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God.  God isn’t glorified by adding something to scripture even if it’s for the purpose of glorifying God.  I’ve noticed with Calvinists today, that for apparently completely depending on God’s sovereignty, they use Finney-esque new measures to accomplish church growth.  I can listen to most Calvinists and hear them tie church growth success to human methodology.  This is where I tell them I’m more Calvinistic than the Calvinists.  I’m not trolling them.  I think it’s true.

In another ironic turn, I say, the truth shall set you free.  The Calvinistic view of free will is not biblical.  It is not the truth.  I have often heard and read Calvinists say that they just got their Calvinism from scripture.  I can’t imagine anyone reading the Bible and getting a deterministic position.  Unlike the Bible, it is conflicting and perplexing.  From the very beginning of scripture to the end, the Bible tells a story in which men make choices based on free will.

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Two)

Part One

Calvinists say that other systems limit God’s sovereignty or control.  Apparently when those systems assign to man free will, they limit God’s sovereignty.  Instead of God being in total charge, man is partly in charge.  Calvinists would also say this means that in salvation, ostensibly man is getting involved to the degree that it’s not salvation by grace anymore, but salvation by works.

When I listen to Calvinists, trying to believe them, and they refer to all the passages they use to prove their point, saying them in very earnest, serious tones, getting hearty “Amens” from their adherents, I am not convinced.  They are stretching and reading into the passages, sometimes changing the meaning of the words to get their conclusions.

For most of my adult life, I’ve said that “God is sovereign over His own sovereignty” (here and here).  Sovereignty isn’t more or less than what God says it is.  What we believe about sovereignty must come from all of scripture and not proof texts.  The word sovereignty itself is part of the system, because it’s not a word in the Bible.  Our understanding of sovereignty should arise from the Bible.

Because God is in control, possesses all power, He can accomplish what He wants in any way that He wants.  Very often in scripture is the word, “will,” and for this doctrine, significantly, “the will of God.”  God uses His power to accomplish His will.  That doesn’t mean God determines everything.  The Bible doesn’t read that way.

I’m not saying that God couldn’t determine everything.  He has the power to do anything He wants to do.  Everything can be in His control without His controlling everything.  If God is not controlling everything, that doesn’t mean He isn’t in control.  God is in total charge.  Many verses teach this.  However, it’s also easy to see that He exercises that sovereignty, that charge or control,  by also allowing man free will.

Calvinists divide between natural will and free will, free will only possessed by believers, true Christians, or truly converted people.  They say the unbeliever does not enjoy free will.  There are verses they use to surmise this point, and I see how they get the point if those were the only verses that applied to their view, but there is much more.

I think that I believe on sovereignty as much as it can be believed.  I am attempting to believe exactly what the Bible says, no matter what the cost.  Salvation is of the Lord.  I believe that faith is a gift.  God alone keeps me saved.  I can list other beliefs I have that relate to the sovereignty of God.

Many Calvinist debates or heated discussions, I ‘ve witnessed, see the Calvinist accusing the non-Calvinist of not believing his verses of scripture.  He also alleges that his foe does not believe in grace.  This person doesn’t believe in the sovereignty of God.  He limits God.  Somehow then too, God isn’t getting the glory.

One avenue, strategy, or technique — I don’t know which of those it is — is expressing the peace, the joy, and the strength one derives from a true understanding of the Calvinist’s view of sovereignty.  During hard times, just think this particular view of God and it will make you feel good.  I think this during those expressions:  “It doesn’t make me feel better if it’s not true.”  I get as much peace as I can get from the truth.

In the extreme, the Calvinist says this person does not have faith. He does not believe in the grace of God.  He is not giving God the glory.  In essence, he also rejects scripture.

A browbeaten person might, usually a professing Christian, because the Calvinist will not do this with an unbeliever, someone who does profess faith in Christ might finally relent.  He recruits Christians to his position of Calvinism.  When they finally become a Calvinist, they finally have the key that opens the scripture, as if it is inculcating a hermeneutic.

Passages Used to Deny Free Will

Crucial in a right interpretation and even application of scripture is going as far as the text and also not going further than the text.  The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:11 says that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”  To prove that God determines everything, a Calvinist points to the words, “all things.”  Indeed, God determines or controls every single happening of all time.  That’s what the verse is telling us.  This is an example of a Calvinist going further than the text to conform to the system.

I think you could look at that verse and say that God has His will and He works all things to accomplish His purpose and will.  That isn’t determining everything.  He is in charge and in control, but that isn’t controlling everything.  This important verse to Calvinists doesn’t say as much as they read into it.

To elaborate on what I see it saying in light of everything else the Bible says, I say that God’s will is His end or His purpose.  He makes sure occurs what He wants to occur.  He must have power over everything in every moment to accomplish that.  God must have vast wisdom.  He must be able to be every place at once.  He must know the past, present, and future like it is a kind of eternal present.

God in His sovereignty and power gives free will to man.  He allows men to make choices.  He still works everything to the end that pleases Him, that He wants.  God either allows or causes every single thing that happens, so He is involved with everything.

I am not going to deal with every single verse a Calvinist might use.  He may say there are better ones than what I’m listing.  Another one is Genesis 50:20:

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

This is a passage where the Calvinist says that the brothers thinking their deeds for evil, God meant unto good.  Apparently, their evil thoughts and deeds were determined or controlled by God.  This is allegedly an example of God doing that.
This viewpoint of the Joseph story conflicts and perplexes, when it makes God the author of his brother’s evil.  According to the system, the brothers are still responsible for the evil, even though it was predetermined by God.  None of that makes sense.  Everything can still make sense and God still be sovereign.  The truth will not conflict like this or perplex.

Passages that Present a Problem with the Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will

As I write this section, I think I’m typing what I choose.  I’m not writing in any order.  I’m just putting down what comes into my brain first from years of reading and studying the Bible and thinking some of that time about this doctrine.  Maybe I have free will because I’m indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I do think that I understand the Calvinist problem with free will for the unbeliever.  He’s in bondage to sin.  Even if he does what he wants, what he wants isn’t what he wants, but what the prince of the world wants for him, along side the world and the flesh.  Then other thoughts pop into my brain, that is, God is also controlling Satan, so when he orchestrates the world to bring this person into bondage, God controls Satan and the man too.  That perplexes.  What is the real bondage?
Some of those Calvinistic thoughts of free will clash with what I read in the Bible in many places.  Someone could write a whole reference Bible called The Free Will Reference Bible that would clash with the Calvinistic doctrine of free will.  Why won’t someone write that?  I wouldn’t want to.  I could call it, the Bible, because it’s so plain that men are making choices and doing what they want to do all the way through the Bible.  That’s how it is reported too.
I’ll give one passage for now and that’s Romans 1:18.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Paul justifies God’s wrath against unbelievers, because they do have free will.  God reveals Himself in many different ways.  God works toward salvation.  Men, however, hold the truth in unrighteousness.
I recognize Calvinists have an answer.  They must.  That’s partly how they keep it going.  I know, no one can keep it going, because man can do nothing.
Men know God.  They glorify him not as God.  They know they should be thankful and they are not.  That all looks like human responsibility.  They hold the truth in unrighteousness.
I’m not going to give an in depth exegesis, but “hold” is katecho, which means “hold back” or “suppress.”  God is just in his wrath, because man deserves it.  He is definitely under the influence of unrighteousness, but he’s still guilty.  He is still responsible.  He has the free will to stop suppressing.
The fact that man suppresses means that God is doing something that requires resistance.  It must be strong resistance, because it is against God.  This does not read like predetermination.  God knows it will happen.  He knows everything, but man is given an opportunity and he freely turns away from it.
The passage also reads like God’s wrath would not be justified if man did not have a choice.  He had one.  God could be just, according to His own rules, if man had a choice, had the free will to choose, and he did not take it.  It was more than that, he suppressed something where God was pressing in on him.  Man will not be able to say that he did not have a choice.  He suppressed this good opportunity that God gave Him.
A Calvinist might say that this man could not be saved, because he did not have the will to be saved.  I agree with that, but that discounts the ability that God gives.  I’ll talk more about that in the future.
(To Be Continued)

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will

As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it.  After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again.  Are my fingers typing on their own?

Okay, so here’s how it seems to me.  I’m just reporting.  I recently heard something about free will.  I’ve thought about it before.  I thought about it again.  Then I decided to write about it.  No one coerced me and no one prevented me.  I typed freely what I want on my keyboard.  I look forward to the day when I find out what really happened.
I believe God gave me the freedom to choose.  He gave me my will, so I have one and the freedom to use it.  I take responsibility for this writing, because it is mine.  No one made me do this.  No one stopped me from doing it.
At the same time, whatever truth I can know on free will comes from God in His Word.  No truth about free will can contradict another truth.  God does not contradict Himself.  He cannot lie.

The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will

The Calvinistic doctrine of free will conflicts and perplexes.  Calvinism says, sure, man is free.  He chooses what he wants to do, but he chooses to sin.  It is in his nature to sin.  He wants to sin.
Being depraved,  man possesses free will, but the will only to sin.  Calvinists say that will only to sin is free will.  That means he does not will salvation either.  He does not want God or righteousness.
Man can choose.  He doesn’t always sin.  He can choose paper instead of plastic.  Calvinists consider that a “natural” choice, the realm in which man does exist.  They also call this “secondary causation.”
On the other hand, other factors seem to come into play with Calvinism and free will.  Conflict and perplexity rise.  God knows everything, past, present, and future.  If He knows everything, then He also predetermines everything.  Man cannot do anything that God does not know.  Knowledge equals determination and Calvinists do not separate those.
Since God knows everything, He also wills everything.  If God wills everything, then God determines everything too.  Calvinists say the alternative to determinism is that God does not know the future, just all the possibilities of what might happen, or “open theism.”
If God determines everything, then He also determines sin and suffering.  God predetermines, determines, or ordains sin.  He’s got a purpose for sin according to His will.  God knows every sin, so He determines it all.  He determined sin, He determined Hell, and He determined to send most people to Hell.
God ordains suffering for sin.  You might say Adam and Eve sinned.  They did, but every man also sinned in Adam.  Every man deserves suffering for sin, starting in this life, ending in his death, and furthermore in his eternal punishment.
If man is not to go to Hell, he cannot choose not to go there.  He chooses only to go there, because his will is depraved.  If he chooses not to go there, God causes that.  He does that through irresistible grace.  God chooses who goes to Heaven.  God the Spirit regenerates those He chooses to receive the Lord God.  Then God keeps them.  He loses none of them.
People sometimes use the word “robot” to describe what seems like a lack of free will.  Calvinists say, men are not robots.  God’s sovereignty to Calvinists though means God determines everything.  It’s perplexing and conflicting that God determines everything, yet man is not a robot.
Everyone God does not choose to save those He chooses for Hell.  He chose them to Hell before their birth.  Knowledge is love.  Foreknowledge is knowing ahead of time.  Knowing ahead of time is loving ahead of time.  Loving is electing to save.  God does not love ahead of time those He also chooses not to save.  He chooses them for Hell.
On the other hand, if man chooses, then salvation is of man.  Man becomes the operative agent of salvation.  If it is not God working, then it is man working.   God is not sovereign.  Man is.  All combined, this conflicts and perplexes.

Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?

I can say I get it.  God is in charge.  He is in control.  For that to be true, I can’t have man choose.  He can’t be a decider.  That makes me more on God’s side, and I want to be on God’s side.  But is it true?  Does that really represent scripture?  I don’t see it for a number of reasons.  It is not how all the passages harmonize with one another.  If Calvinism represents scripture, then scripture itself conflicts and perplexes, and it just doesn’t.
When I say Calvinism conflicts and perplexes, I mean that Calvinism conflicts with the Bible and perplexes me over its seeming disharmony with scripture.  No truth will contradict other truth.  It must harmonize.  Passages must agree with each other.  The right explanation of every passage fits with the right explanation of all other passages.
I can’t expose all the conflict and perplexity with the Calvinistic doctrine of free will in one post or even two.  I agree with both some of what I read in Calvinism and some of what I read in other historical theological systems.  With whatever the Bible says, I concur.  I dissent with whatever differs with God’s Word.
Calvinism or even Reformed theology did not start with Genesis 1:1 or Genesis 50 or Isaiah 10 or Isaiah 40-48 or with the Apostle Paul and Ephesians 1:11.  If someone in the day those passages occurred read those passages, and he could have read Calvin, he would not read Calvin there.  Joseph and his brothers would not say that God meant them to do the evil they did.  God determined them to do evil.  Calvinism forces scripture into it.  It doesn’t harmonize all the passages.
Someone can fit Ephesians 1:11 into Calvinism, but then Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t fit the rest of scripture.  To fit Ephesians 1:11 into all of scripture, which it does, it must abandon Calvinism.
There are good things about Calvinism or Reformed theology.  I like them.  I like listening to their proponents on those things.  They are better than other men, other theologians.
Not only does Calvinism conflict and perplex related to scripture, but it conflicts with itself.  It is incoherent with the data of scripture, but now it is incoherent with historic Calvinism.  It’s as if Calvinism now allows God to determine modernism and pragmatism.  With the new Calvinist, God uses modernism and Calvinism for good, justifying the two when it is convenient for the Calvinist without regard of his free will.
For instance, God determines Daniel Wallace looking for manuscript and James White practicing textual criticism and judging textual variants according to humanly designed standards.  God determines contemporary Christian rockers or rappers to increase church attendance.  They mold God’s sovereignty to fit man’s purposes.
(To Be Continued)

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives